Is an original (natural) right the source from which the rights of the living, of which we are a part, derive?

In any case, the purpose of these 'secondary' rights is indeed to regulate the life of this or that group or sphere. At this point, a legitimate question arises: in the name of what end do some people arrogate to themselves the right to decide (say) the rights of other living beings, in particular by constraining their free migrations and/or natural transformations?

Already, throughout history, it has been postulated that no one is supposed to ignore the law. However, in the course of history, the law diverges according to the interests at stake, the forces at work and the struggles of minorities. From one right (divine or human - but where are the potential animal, mineral or plant rights? -), rights that can be adapted or adapted to contingencies and developments (the right of the strongest, the right of the weakest) emerge with astonishing vigour depending on the private or public, singular or collective, territorial or not, common or not, spheres and depending on whether or not living species are taken into account.

Spaces and times are expanding. The same is true of rights. The law has therefore fertilised rights as we have migrated.

Indeed, it is indeed "our" migrations as living beings that have generated and are generating new questions of rights. Migration being understood in various forms: interiorities and/or physicalities.

Thinking about our biological, geographical, metaphysical and spiritual migrations, in their demanding diversity, leads to thinking about differentiated rights.

Yesterday is not tomorrow, but our present is the memory of tomorrow; tomorrow is already the today of our inter-species migrations and pushes us to think, to invent, to live new rights, for ourselves, for others, for all of us, migrants, whatever our condition of being-migrants.

Together (in rights), migrant (in conditionality).